The court asked why the civic administration never conducted any departmental inquiry against its staff over files pertaining to building permissions that are missing since 2014.TNN | November 24, 2016, 07:48 IST

MUMBAI: Expressing shock that there were three commencement certificates for one building, the Bombay high court on Wednesday summoned the architect on Friday to find out which one was genuine. The court also asked why the civic administration never conducted any departmental inquiry against its staff over files pertaining to building permissions that are missing since 2014.

The building, Shimmer, in Santacruz (W) is at the centre of a simmering controversy. Over 30 flat buyers, who had made bookings since 2009, moved court demanding that a court receiver be appointed for the 14-storey building despite the architect saying the commencement certificate (CC), as on 2010, was only till the stilt level. While another documents suggests it is till the fifth or an “overwritten’’ eighth floor, yet another annexed to a flat sale agreement in 2011 said the CC is till the 17th storey.

The builder’s counsel, Raj Patel, produced a CC which said it was till the fifth floor.

The buyers dragged Kamlashri Builders, its partners Jitendra Jain, his brother Jinendra, brother-in-law Ketan Shah and Kamla Landmarc Constructions Pvt Ltd to court. Their counsel Pesi Mody said they are interested in the appointment of a court receiver so that the building can be completed.

A S Wakade, executive engineer in building proposals department (western region), appeared in court, as directed, and informed Justice S J Kathawalla that a police complaint was made in November 2011 about the missing building permission files. He said the department has since been trying to “reconstruct the lost files”.

He added that over 2,000 files are missing in the BMC, but when asked by the judge since when, Wakade replied that he would have to look at the records.

To the judge’s queries, Wakade said a “common enquiry” did not include the Shimmer case. He said the architect was asked to produce the files. Justice Katahwalla’s repeatedly asked why was there no departmental inquiry against the staff when an “internal note” clearly said “there were several complaints received against the builder for unauthorized construction”.

“It is very dangerous that in your office, developers can manage the disappearance of files...If you know that there are so many complaints, why haven’t you initiated a departmental inquiry against anyone. First thing you have to do is find out who is the thief in your house, then go elsewhere to find out,” said Justice Kathawalla. The judge, on Tuesday, had said the EOW is investigating the developers for their failure to hand over flats and cheating buyers in other projects.